Reserved Category Candidate Cannot Claim Appointment Against Reserved Post After Opting For Unreserved Category: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The High Court held that a candidate who consciously opts for the unreserved category cannot, after participating unsuccessfully in the selection process, claim appointment against a reserved post or challenge the selection of a candidate who applied under the reserved category.
Justice Ranjan Sharma, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a candidate belonging to a reserved category cannot seek appointment against a reserved post after choosing not to apply under the reserved category at the time of recruitment.
The Court was hearing a petition challenging the appointment of a selected candidate against an OBC-reserved post of Punjabi Teacher, on the ground that the petitioner herself belonged to the OBC category and was allegedly more meritorious. The petitioner sought quashing of the appointment order and a direction for her own appointment.
The matter was decided by Justice Ranjan Sharma, who, while dismissing the petition, held that “once the petitioner has chosen not to avail benefit of reservation available as OBC candidate then, after participation and having remained unsuccessful, the petitioner has neither any locus nor any right to turn around and claim/appointment against OBC post and the petitioner cannot question the selection of private respondent, who being OBC was selected against such reserved post, on the basis of merit, on the recommendations made by duly constituted Selection Committee”.
Advocate Raman Jamalta represented the petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General Sumit Sharma represented the respondents.
Background
Six posts of Punjabi Teachers were advertised temporarily by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Bilaspur, of which one was reserved for the OBC category.
The petitioner belonged to the OBC category but did not apply against the reserved OBC post in the manner prescribed under the recruitment notice. Respondent No.4, who belonged to the OBC category, applied under the reserved category and was selected and appointed.
Aggrieved by her non-selection, the petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No. 4, claiming that she was entitled to the appointment to the OBC-reserved post on account of her category status and alleged higher merit.
Court’s Observation
The Himachal Pradesh High Court examined the recruitment notice and noted that it expressly provided for one reserved post for OBC candidates and required candidates to submit applications in the prescribed format along with category certificates. The Court found that there was no material on record to show that the petitioner had applied under the OBC category or submitted the requisite certificate with her application.
The Court held that once the petitioner had chosen not to apply against the reserved OBC post and had participated in the selection process as an unreserved candidate, she could not, after remaining unsuccessful, turn around and seek appointment against the reserved post.
The Court, while making these observations, remarked that “the right of a reserved candidate for consideration against reserved post accrues and crystalizes only in case, a reserved candidate opts and applies for reserved post and not otherwise”.
The Court also noted that neither the recruitment advertisement nor the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules permitted a candidate to change category, stating that “unless Recruitment Notice-Advertisement or the Recruitment and Promotion Rules permit that a reserved candidate who had not applied against respective reserved category can seek such benefit at a stage after commencement of selection, then only, such a claim could subsist”.
The Court additionally observed that the petitioner’s OBC certificate had expired prior to the issuance of the recruitment notice and that there was no averment that she continued to fall within the non-creamy layer at the relevant time. This was another factor disentitling the petitioner from claiming appointment against the reserved post.
The Court also rejected the petitioner’s challenge to the eligibility of respondent No.4, holding that the educational qualifications prescribed in the recruitment notice were alternative in nature and fully aligned with the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Since respondent No.4 possessed one of the prescribed qualifications, his appointment was held to be valid.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the petitioner, having consciously chosen not to apply under the reserved OBC category, had no right to seek appointment against the reserved post or to challenge the selection of respondent No.4. Finding no illegality or arbitrariness in the selection process or appointment order, the Court dismissed the petition.
All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
Cause Title: Baljinder Kaur v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:40313)
Appearances
Petitioner: Raman Jamalta, Advocate
Respondents: Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Surender Sharma, Advocate